[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Evidence from nations that offer it suggest that it does help, somewhat, but not entirely. Women are still more likely to go part time (or stop work entirely) than men, outwith official parental leave. It's still seen as "higher risk" because they might decide not to come back at all or take a career break of several years.

Does this not tie in with the glass ceiling though, if in a couple one has to leave work to be a care giver it has traditionally been the woman as she earns less?

This is slowly changing, and there are more stay at home dads now. There is still a taboo around career women who put off having kids too, your post seems to hint that women are seen as unreliable in the workforce. It's attitudes like this that need to change.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Because they're getting paid more, basically.

If you think a woman presenter isn't being paid enough, see if her average figures and airtime matches with a male counterpart who gets paid more.

How do you know this is happening, you appear to be stating a fact where is the evidence?

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

How do you know this is happening, you appear to be stating a fact where is the evidence?

The proof is in the pudding - they're getting paid more, which means they must be "performing" better.

Something which would need evidence is the contrary view - why do you think women aren't being paid as much if they're "performing" as well or better?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Only in instances where it isn't actually the "same" job, these are unique positions with negotiated contracts, not salaried positions. If you're talking about a salaried position where there is more than one person in the same position, the salary will be exactly the same. That's where it becomes a matter of social inequality rather than legal... because...



...this is correct, but the answer isn't just "so that's just how it be" - you have to at some point start asking the question... WHY are male anchors a bigger draw, WHY do they command larger salaries, WHY do they draw more viewers. The wider questions that have less to do with the people doing the hiring, and more to do with the mindset of the viewing public. Same as in a sales role. The male salesperson often performs better on paper and gets the promotion - but why? It's usually not down to ability or how much work they're putting in, but simply down to the fact that people in general (both male and female) find males more authorotative and take them more seriously in their sales pitch. But again the question is why, and how do we start to address that going forward, because in the interests of fairness we DO need to. And that's where it IS about the past, and why the past has to be acknowledged as still affecting the present. Western capitalism is partiarchal at its core... putting legal equality in place and saying "so now it's an even playing field " really misses the mark by a mile. It's an even playing field in terms of legal rights, but the whole stadium was built by men and plays to what are classically male strengths.

You can still negotiate a salary over time.. the challenge brought by the female presenters was that proportionately the salaries were away off in respect of popularity and viewing figures.

There was also a challenge by older female presenters who has been sidelined due to their age regardless of popularity of viewer numbers. This would not happen to older male presenters.

I also think the analogy of the bullying salesman is outmoded and yet your point that men who exhibit an 'authorotative' air is seen as displaying a strength...For me that perpetuates patriarchy.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

The proof is in the pudding - they're getting paid more, which means they must be "performing" better.

Something which would need evidence is the contrary view - why do you think women aren't being paid as much if they're "performing" as well or better?

Not necessarily. ..the evidence is in the challenge from the female presenters...as I said proportionally to figures and popularity the salaries are miles apart.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Not necessarily. ..the evidence is in the challenge from the female presenters...as I said proportionally to figures and popularity the salaries are miles apart.

"Well they would say that, wouldn't they"

Care to name one? If we have a name, it'd be easy enough to compare salaries against her counterpart.

[bitontheslide]

there wont be proper equality until people think of others as being equal and that's just not fundamental to human nature, we all have our basic preferences, whatever they may be, we will always prefer one person over another and it will never change. You can put legal safeguards in place, but that basic premise will never change

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

there wont be proper equality until people think of others as being equal and that's just not fundamental to human nature, we all have our basic preferences, whatever they may be, we will always prefer one person over another and it will never change. You can put legal safeguards in place, but that basic premise will never change

So you don't think there is any rhyme or reason for positions of seniority going to males other than someone liked them more?

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

So you don't think there is any rhyme or reason for positions of seniority going to males other than someone liked them more?

i think there will perhaps always be that element. I think back to the time of Angela Rippon and Anna Ford where they took newsreading by storm and were enormously successful, and I'm sure their salaries matched their status as they were wildly popular with the public

[Tom4784]

Popularity didn't equate to equal wages back when they revealed the wages of BBC's top talent a while back, I think it would be silly to think that things would have been better years ago when no one was paying attention to such issues.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i think there will perhaps always be that element. I think back to the time of Angela Rippon and Anna Ford where they took newsreading by storm and were enormously successful, and I'm sure their salaries matched their status as they were wildly popular with the public

Their salaries don't match their male counterparts.. That's my point.
Look at similar presenters, Gary Lineker and Gabby Logan or Jeremy Vine and Jo Whiley they are miles apart.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc...-arts-48839428

[Kizzy]

The conversation has veered off here somewhat... Let's get back to the opinion as decreed from the perspective of white male privilege provided in the OP.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Their salaries don't match their male counterparts.. That's my point.
Look at similar presenters, Gary Lineker and Gabby Logan or Jeremy Vine and Jo Whiley they are miles apart.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc...-arts-48839428

Well right away it's easy to see the difference between them - Linekar is on Match of the Day, which is on all the time, and the World Cup, which is huge. He does SPOTY with Logan, who otherwise does bits and bobs along with the Commonwealth Games.

Jeremy Vine not only has his daily show, but also Eggheads and Quizmaster, and while his Channel 5 show obviously isn't counted, it still raises his profile and makes his time more valuable. As far as I know Jo Whiley only has her daily show?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

The proof is in the pudding - they're getting paid more, which means they must be "performing" better.

Something which would need evidence is the contrary view - why do you think women aren't being paid as much if they're "performing" as well or better?

You must be naive to assume that just because 'a' is happening that it is because it's all fair and 'b' is happening.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

You must be naive to assume that just because 'a' is happening that it is because it's all fair and 'b' is happening.

Then there must be something to show I'm wrong, there must be some women being paid less than men despite having the same amount of experience, screen or radio time, "fame level", and viewing/listening figures?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Then there must be something to show I'm wrong, there must be some women being paid less than men despite having the same amount of experience, screen or radio time, "fame level", and viewing/listening figures?

No dear. You made the statement, the onus is on you to back it up, not on me to prove you wrong.

The fact you think it a mere coincidence that women earn less and must therefore be "less experienced or qualified" is naive in the extreme.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

No dear. You made the statement, the onus is on you to back it up, not on me to prove you wrong.

The fact you think it a mere coincidence that women earn less and must therefore be "less experienced or qualified" is naive in the extreme.

I need to back up the idea that a media figure's pay is based on their fame, viewers, and airtime? Surely a conclusion like that is so self evident that the opposite should need to be backed up.

I'll refer to an earlier post, where Kizzy mentioned pay differences between Gary Linekar and Gabby Logan, and Jeremy Vine and Jo Whiley

Linekar is on Match of the Day, which is on all the time, and the World Cup, which is huge. He does SPOTY with Logan, who otherwise does bits and bobs along with the Commonwealth Games.

Jeremy Vine not only has his daily show, but also Eggheads and Quizmaster, and while his Channel 5 show obviously isn't counted, it still raises his profile and makes his time more valuable. As far as I know Jo Whiley only has her daily show?

I'm not saying anything is a coincidence, I'm wondering if there are any examples of women who meet all the same "criteria" as a male counterpart but get paid less.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I need to back up the idea that a media figure's pay is based on their fame, viewers, and airtime?

The claim that this is a criteria applied equally to all is something requiring evidence, yes.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

The claim that this is a criteria applied equally to all is something requiring evidence, yes.

How would one prove such a thing?

There's no evidence to assume discrimination is happening, as no-one can show that it is, so the safer assumption is that the criteria is being applied equally.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

There's no evidence to assume discrimination is happening

The pay disparity itself is proof.

"The men have earned their worth, the women need to work harder" is not... not anything really.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

The pay disparity itself is proof.

Where is the disparity among males and females with equal air time, viewers or listeners, and profile?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Where is the disparity among males and females with equal air time, viewers or listeners, and profile?

So... you're saying the men have earned their worth and the women haven't?

Because we're not talking about Gary Lineker or Gabby Logan, we're talking about the general trend towards men and women of EQUAL position.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

"The men have earned their worth, the women need to work harder" is not... not anything really.

I'm not saying that, I'm saying there's no evidence that women are being paid less for the same work, basically.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I'm not saying that, I'm saying there's no evidence that women are being paid less for the same work, basically.

So, therefore the overall trend is a coincidence and men work harder?

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

So... you're saying the men have earned their worth and the women haven't?

No, I'm asking if there any examples of women being paid less despite doing the same amount for the BBC.